There are precious few
understandings that produce universal agreement among those who could
understand. It seems reasonable that mathematical understandings, logical
understandings, and scientific understandings are the best candidates; and a
precious few indeed. What does this mean and is it good?
Virtually everyone agrees
and understands the following: two things added to two more things results in
four things altogether. When there is hesitation in agreement we might try to
help by grabbing two things, grabbing two more things, and placing them all
together. If there is still hesitation then we have recourse to a couple
possibilities. Either the individual in question simply does not understand the
terms/words being used or the
individual has a cognitive malfunction that does not allow for understanding. Either
way, it is simply not acceptable to admit the possibility that the individual
has come to a different, but equally true, understanding like: two things added to
two more things results in five things altogether.
All those who agree with
the above example (which may be written 2+2=4)
display one if not all of our three precious few understandings. To grasp
2+2=4, one can use logical understandings including but not limited to the
principle of non-contradiction or maybe a principle of identity. Certainly one
must grasp mathematical functions like adding and determining sums. And if an
ostensive example is used, such as grabbing and placing objects together, then
observation comes into play coupled with some kind of induction.
Again, it is certainly
possible that a room containing a thousand individuals from every country,
culture, and language group representative of this planet would agree with (1)
that 2+2=4 and with (2) that water at sea level boils at 100C/212F.
Nonetheless, this same group of diverse individuals who agreed with (1) and (2)
will certainly not agree when it comes to other kinds of understandings such
as: metaphysical, ethical, religious, and political.
More examples could be
given but the more interesting point should be easily seen: these three ways of
understanding receive widespread if not universal agreement among individuals.
This is true regardless of culture, language, social location, and so on. Mathematical understandings and logical understandings may be considered
highest in an increasing scale of agreement. Scientific understandings may
receive less agreement in various cases; nonetheless, all three receive a kind
of agreement among individuals that simply is not found with other kinds of understandings.
These three kinds of
understandings together represent the only form of communication whereby humans
can agree and produce. The resulting products of this communication are technologies.
Behind all technologies are to be found languages and forms of communication
that allow for agreement among humans who otherwise disagree.
Technologies may seem to
be, for the most part, morally neutral as are the forms of understanding and
communication that produce them. The various ways technologies are used and
employed are certainly not morally neutral. My shovel may be used in such a way
that life can flourish, or not. A shovel used as an instrument of murder may
yet still be an innocent shovel. But is this true of all technologies? There
may very well be some technologies, such as bombs, that are useless if not for
the potential for a destructive use. Well no matter, it is enough that we know
where we agree, the means for doing so, and the produce of such agreement.
It might be assumed at
this point that if humanity as a group of individuals can agree, then it is
where they agree that the greatest possibility for the flourishing of all terrestrial life forms will be
found. Science and its technologies are often considered the surest way towards
this kind of progress. And yet a moment’s consideration can bring questions to mind. Haven’t
technologies been both sources of destruction as well as of flourishing? Has it
not been the case that what seemed a wonderful understanding resulted in a
horrible tragedy? The answer to both questions would seem to be “Yes.” Even so,
the initial assumption may still hold. This agreement, its means, and its
produce may still hold the greatest possibility for flourishing of all terrestrial life forms (that is life forms found on and dependent on this earth).
We cannot guarantee this kind of flourishing, but we have a possible means. That being said, to date it seems we have proceeded
as if anything that can be understood and used should be understood and used.
We generally proceed as if the consequence of said understanding and use is of
no concern. Or at least the general attitude has been something like, “Let’s
see if we can do it, and then we’ll worry about how we might use it.”
We can also say at this
point that the desire for military strength has helped lessen hesitation when
it comes to seeing if we can do anything we think possible. For reasons not
hard to imagine, governments finance the discovery of technologies with no
qualms of possible destructive uses. In fact destructive uses are often the
consequence sought, even if it is implicitly understood that hopefully no
occasion for such uses will ever arise.
All this to say that
human agreement has great potential, great power. When we are one, and when we
have one language or form of communication, there seems to be no end to what we
can propose and do. The edifices we build, the technologies we construct, have great potential. But, the outcomes are uncertain. It seems our only hope
is to not do everything we discover that we can do. We absolutely must weigh
the consequences and be willing to abstain either from proceeding in particular
instances or from proceeding in particular ways. But I’m afraid we won’t. In a
world of possibilities, it seems certain that every one of them will obtain if
enough time allows. We will do all we can do, not because it is good, but
because we can.
